Philosophy discussion

some time ago, matt cited althusser as claiming that it is impossible to take a position on philosophy without taking a position within philosophy. while interesting in its own right, this claim brings to mind currently a second concern: the freedom to take a stand within philosophy. covert censorship is already a function of academia in this country (i.e. you can say whatever you would like but not be published, perhaps not hired, certainly marginalized during your own time). but i wonder how long we have before overt censorship becomes the norm? nyu is hosting a conference on academic freedom in november. this has me wondering in real terms about the potential freedom in the domain of academic philosophy...and what, if anything, philosophers should say or do. hannah arendt makes the claim that we have an obligation to speak and to speak publically. do we think this is true? or do we think that there is such a divide between academia and politics that there may be no obligation or even purpose in such speaking?

Hi Mikha --


You've said that covert censorship is taking place in academia. Can you give any examples of what you mean? I'm not aware of it.

As to overt censorship, I don't think that will ever happen. The reason I don't think so is that social controls within political systems have moved away from overt rules, which can be explicitly attacked. These days, control over the thinking within a society can be exerted indirectly, without the need for overt actions



...or do we think that there is such a divide between academia and politics that there may be no obligation or even purpose in such speaking?

I don't think any divide separates academia and politics so long as they support the same social system.

As to the Hannah Arendt quote, the problem with speaking out occurs only if the act of speaking out has become useless as a means of changing society. If so, this quote no longer applies. But have we really reached that point in our world?

Hi :-)

Covert censorship takes place in the form of not getting certain types of work published, being "un-marketable" for dealing with particular schools of thought, the departmental politics that can make one's life very uncomfortable, etc...one such recent example come to mind: I gave a paper at a conference and was asked a question after the paper by a professor at that university. The question had to do with the iron curtain which we both believe is still alive and well in academia. After the panel, this professor's colleagues, to a person, would not speak to her. She and I spoke and she gave a book that she had published privately because the subject matter could not get published by a journal, and even if it did, would threaten her standing in the department. With tenure it is hard to fire people, but not hard to make them insignificant, unpublishable, and kind of miserable.

As to your remark that covert censorship is all that may be "needed": I take it that when an environment of fear around speaking certain words and communicating certain ideas silences people then we are dealing with overt censorship. Book burning is overt censorship. Labeling individuals who disagree with Israel's policies as anti-semitic is overt censorship. Calling those who disagree with our policies unpatriotic and dangerous to the common good is overt censorship.

As for the relationship between academia and politics, I take it that academia is one of the domains that can remain objective enough to challenge the social systems in place. Academia as a whole can and should be "the gadfly". Academia and politics supporting the same social system sounds like fascism to me!

As for speaking to change social structures, getting others to critical examine the systems in place (both obvious and otherwise) that shape and control their lives and then asking them if they want to change those and how...this form of speaking...of encouraging an informed, intelligent questioning and subsequent problem-solving, has never and can never become useless regarding the process of changing societies. Indeed, this is the first and necessary step to changing social structures. The physical revolution comes after the mental one.

Hello,

With all due respect, it seems to me you're stretching the concept of "censorship" a little too far here. It's not censorship if someone doesn't want to publish your paper; it's not censorship if someone doesn't like you because of the views you hold; it's not censorship for someone to call you anti-Semitic if they think you're anti-Semitic; and it's not censorship for someone to burn a book, so long as the book they burn belongs to them (don't get me wrong, obviously book burning is creepy and wrong even if it's just someone's own private property that is being burnt, but it's not censorship).

Certainly people can and do create an oppressive atmosphere that stifles the dispassionate free flow of ideas, and this is unfortunate, but it is also human nature. That is why it takes courage to challenge the status quo, and why it is difficult to be a "radical" and be taken seriously. "Courage" actually means something in this context: it means undergoing all of the very real hardships you describe above in order to stay true to the principles you believe in.

Real censorship, in my opinion, would be if someone actually stopped you from speaking your mind: if they threatened to fire you, or jail you, or kill you. But simply being denied a bullhorn to air your ideas (i.e., get published) or being disliked by your peers--while certainly shitty--is not censorship, whether or not you attach the word "covert" in the front.

Oh--and I think it's silly to say that "academia and politics supporting the same social system sounds like fascism". If an academic supports social system A, why should the fact that social system A is in place have any effect on that? Is academia merely reflexive contrarianism?

Hi David:

I take your point about censorship, though I do think that the problem goes further than "being denied a bullhorn". Getting published is not about getting a bullhorn. It is about getting and keeping a job, the effects of which are markedly more harmful than having one's feeling hurt when one is disliked by one's peers. And certainly I am ready to acknowledge that to press on the in face of such behavior is courageous.

But when academic institutions only give public voice to the theory or theories that support the current social and political systems then we are moving into a space of static and thereby oppressive thought, which, when pushed far enough, closely resembles fascism. This is the concern that had Dewey working on progressive education and Paolo Freire pushing those ideas further with his work on critical pedagogy.

Why this is the case is specifically due to the role that educational institutions play in teaching or not teaching, encouraging or not encouraging, creative, innovative, critical thought. Perhaps this is where we differ in our underlying assumptions. I maintain that there is no institutional role as influential in the development of one's capacity to think inquisitively and critically than the role of education. When that domain becomes one that does not challenge the social and political status quo (and as we are taking about censorship, I am assuming that that lack of challenge is forced, not natural) then the capacity of individuals to do such work on their own is dramatically diminished. So certainly academia is not "merely reflexive contrarianism" but it does play a substantial role in developing agents who can think creatively and critically. When it chooses not to do so by quieting dissenting voices then it becomes an agent of oppression, and in some cases, fascism.

Mikha wrote: "Hi David:

I take your point about censorship, though I do think that the problem goes further than "being denied a bullhorn". Getting published is not about getting a bullhorn. It is about getting..."

Fewwww this is something I know little about. I am thinking of pursuing a teaching career. Can anyone tell me a little more about the world of a university as a professor? By the looks of this discussion it seems complicated and stressful which I don’t want a part in:(

I think the point of censorship in academia is well founded, although I suspect that it is a bit more intelligent than to ever label it thus. I wonder, in fact, whether those in charge of ideologies or publications would ever even think this way either.
In a case of a biologist writing about cancer being detectable in the blood, I recall the person not only being refused multiple publications but, when he persisted, drummed out of his professional groups. Apparently at the time, looking at the blood was not in vogue.
In another case, a professor wrote about ADHD and experimented with various methods in which the refresh rate of video monitors created difficulties with brain functions. Those in the field of clinical psychology weren't following that line of thought at the time and this theory was bitterly opposed and the writer’s character besmirched.
In yet another case, a Phenomenologist was ridiculed because the prevalence was then "scientific" philosophy. I further recall one issue not that long ago wherein every paper in a department had to be something to so with some sort of aberrant sexual freedom in order to be acceptable for public topics! Such was considered “getting with the program.”
Clearly we see a myriad of possible examples but I would tend to think that none of the perpetrators would have called it censorship. Nevertheless, it is often very clearly stated in some fields, even in business, what kinds of ideas one is expected to profess in public, especially those which can be construed in representing the department or business. The greater question is first, what it really is, and, second, what anyone in a given time without significant support can do about it.

Another problem that broadens this topic a bit is this question: In the educational system, who is the customer?

The immediate answer might be "the student," but I'm not convinced that's so. In many cases, business seems to be the customer, and students the product of the educational system, at least in the United States.

If that's true, academic inquiry may be limited from the outset by whatever interests or offends the market economy. This would be a kind of censorship, but a more subtle one.

One problem this highlights is whether scientific research is oriented in the direction most useful to the public. Another is whether drug trials might become biased if they depend upon corporate sponsorship. A related question would be what research is not being done because its findings might offend some industry or other.

Corporate input into education could affect more than science. The choice of what courses to teach in political science, sociology, law, psychology -- just about any field -- all would involve decisions about what not to teach and what not to talk about. What's not being said or taught may be more significant that what is.

Could this be a greater area of risk to academic freedom that purely intellectual trends?

David wrote: "With all due respect, it seems to me you're stretching the concept of "censorship" a little too far here. It's not censorship if someone doesn't want to publish your paper;"

We don't like what you say. You are forbidden ever to publish your views on goodreads again.

Of course, we're not censoring you. No, not at all. We're just forbidding your ever expressing your views in this forum. But by your terms, that's not censorship.

Hi Justin --

Political correctness is just one of the problems academic philosophers have fallen prey to. The lack of involvement by philosophers in public debate is an even bigger problem. The Marxist feminist might be an example of a more general problem. Let me quote from The Unconscious Civilization, where John Ralston Saul writes:

…today’s inheritors of the leadership of the reform movement have consolidated their idea of rights into their own acceptance of corporatist structures. To take just one example, philosophy has always been central to the public debate over the human condition. This is because successful reform depends upon a widespread understanding of the philosophical options available and of their implications. Suddenly, the great philosophical voice of humanist decency is absent from the public debate. Why? Because most of its exponents are caught up in the complexities of philosophical professionalism -- a world of narrow specializations and impenetrable dialect. A corporation of philosophy. They have left the field of public debate wide open to more cynical forces on the other side. How can those who share the humanist approach be led by people who do not believe that philosophical public debate is possible? Let alone worthwhile?

While criticizing the profession in the context or corporatism, and from a humanist angle, Raul seems to have put his finger on a "consensus trance" in philosophy departments much wider than just political correctness.

I really like your account your experience as a student, and I hope other members will read it. What class was that professor teaching? He sounds like a wonderful example of the need for objectivity in the classroom. This is what a philosophy class should be -- a place where students entertain new ideas. I hope you'll continue posting on your experiences.

Patrice wrote: "There's a reason why Hillsdale College refuses all Federal funds. When government money funds institutions politics are dictated. Has anyone heard about the recent NEA scandal? Grants were conti..."

According to the logic of this respoonse, someone who possesses a major title--such as the President of Harvard University--should be allowed to express any opinion whatsoever, as long as it is expressed "privately," without suffering any consequences. I am not sure I understand the difference between a "public" meeting and a "private" one, when one is serving in the position of president of a private university. If he had expressed his opinion in a "public" forum, he should be held accountable, but not otherwise?

Tyler wrote: "Hi Justin --

Political correctness is just one of the problems academic philosophers have fallen prey to. The lack of involvement by philosophers in public debate is an even bigger problem. The ..."

The first problem is in the notion that universities are now generally concerned with "ideas." Perhaps some faculty members are, but universities in general are concerned with little more than reproduction (maintaining itself) and ideas are far down on the list of requirements for that goal. Overt censorship is far less of a problem than economic exploitations, as universities use more and more part-time labor, while offering no benefits, stability, etc. Of course, you can't call them on it, partly because of the faculty themselves who are so quick to fall back on the same authoritarian/corporatist thinking they are so quick to criticize in class (as long as it doesn't cost them anything). The universities are corporations, only without the overt honesty of announcing their exploitative goals....

I wasn't talking about individual decisions of whether to keep a job or not but about a pervasive attitude toward how society/economics should be organized; whether you decide to keep a job or not is irrelevant to the question of influence of corporations in social life.

"Corporatism," the way Saul uses the term, means the political and economic elevation of the interests of private groups over the interests of the individual.


Hi Michael --

It seems the education system generally is more concerned with teaching procedure than ideas. While the lack of stability in the academic work force is important, it's also fruitful to ask who the "customer" of the education system is in the first place. Is it the student?

State=bad authoritarianism, including forcing universities to take those underqualified ethnic types. Corporations=freedom, no authoritarianism. Thanks, Bill, I never had the distinction explained so insightfully and lucidly. I will not longer attribute any kind of authoritarian thinking or influence to anything but the state!

Tyler wrote: ""Corporatism," the way Saul uses the term, means the political and economic elevation of the interests of private groups over the interests of the individual.


Hi Michael --

It seems the edu..."

Thanks for the Saul definition, Tyler. I might modify it somewhat to indicate exalting the rights of private interests not only over individuals but also over collective public interests. As for the question about "consumers" that's a hard one--I think I will need to give that some thought. Part of the problem is determining to what extent this notion of consumerism even applies to the university and to what degree.